What do atheist think about rape?

[OldGit]

Why do humans tend to be monogamous?  It's because if the father sticks around, the offspring will have a better chance of surviving.  If the male impregnates multiple partners, the offspring will not have that advantage - on the other hand if he does it a lot, his genes will tend to get through.  In fact, our behaviour suggests we often try to get away with both strategies at once.
Given that, some males are going to want to rape a female  if they can get away with it.
As to the moral objection in most societies, it seems to me that's just a part of general natural morality: not mistreating people.

[McQ]

you guys are pathetic.  it was a serious question in the philosophy forum.  my question is why we evolved into moral beings, especially if the moral development seems contrary to our purpose.  i was assuming that a naturalist's thought must be that we developed these morals... naturally... because it was beneficial to our survival.  i chose one instance that seemed out of place in that purpose.  for example, why is murder wrong, well obviously if we all kill each other we won't survive.  why is good to help people, well because we'll all become stronger.  these are morals that would make sense to me.

no ulterior motives, please get over it.

I'll admit that when I asked the plain question "what do atheists think about rape?", it probably looked like a facetious question.  i should have elaborated when I asked it, I just wasn't thinking.  I usually start conversations with one simple question to see where it goes.

Who guys are pathetic? You admit you started this off with a question that looked like a facetious one, then get angry and start insulting people for thinking you were a christian troll. Next time, why don't you just ask the question you really want to ask in the first place and be clear? Then we won't have to waste time because you weren't specific.

And the question still looks loaded because you ask what atheists think about rape, implying that ALL atheists think alike on it. One does not follow the other. The only thing atheists all believe (and even this is up to a wide range of mini-beliefs) is no god(s). Your question is like asking what atheists' favorite flavor of ice cream is.

[Whitney]

you guys are pathetic.  it was a serious question in the philosophy forum.

If you want serious answers ask questions that consist of more than a vague question.  If you are an atheist you should be more than aware that idiot Christians constantly ask questions like yours because they think that atheists will somehow view rape differently from any other normal person.

If you call everyone pathetic again or use any other needless derogatory language you will start getting official warnings for it.

my question is why we evolved into moral beings, especially if the moral development seems contrary to our purpose.

If that was your question it should have been in the OP.

i was assuming that a naturalist's thought must be that we developed these morals... naturally... because it was beneficial to our survival.

Not all atheists are naturalists....but yes, people who accept reality for what it is think everything has a natural cause.

i chose one instance that seemed out of place in that purpose.

Only if you disregard that it is not productive for a pack society to have half of their pack living in fear of rape.

no ulterior motives, please get over it.

If you want people to not take what you say the wrong way learn how to express yourself more clearly.

I'll admit that when I asked the plain question "what do atheists think about rape?", it probably looked like a facetious question.  i should have elaborated when I asked it, I just wasn't thinking.  I usually start conversations with one simple question to see where it goes.

Well, now you know not to be so vague....it still was not appropriate for you to throw a hissy fit when others couldn't read your mind.

[leonswan2000]

you guys are pathetic. I dont think this is worth a warning but not very diplomatic for someone who is trying to be so clinical. it was a serious question in the philosophy forum.  my question is why we evolved into moral beings, Perhaps its as easy as if someone raped me that would be terrible so I'm not going to do it to somebody. Oviously this doesnt work for people we consider to have mental problems but that is another topic especially if the moral development seems contrary to our purpose. what? why? i was assuming that a naturalist's thought must be that we developed these morals... naturally... because it was beneficial to our survival.wich came first the chicken or the egg.  i chose one instance that seemed out of place in that purpose.a good example. Gets people pasionate.  for example, why is murder wrong, well obviously if we all kill each other we won't survive.  why is good to help people, well because we'll all become stronger.  these are morals that would make sense to me.

no ulterior motives, please get over it.

I'll admit that when I asked the plain question "what do atheists think about rape?", it probably looked like a facetious question.  i should have elaborated when I asked it, I just wasn't thinking.  I usually start conversations with one simple question to see where it goes.

Again I think most of us dont do to others what we dont want done to us. However almost all people are capable of forgetting morals ethics if told its OK by someone in authority.[war] Very few people stick to there morals with peer pressure. This is simplified, You shust need to read some of the test results on morals in human behaviour.

[templeboy]

Secondly, I wasn't trying to say that atheists are bad people as you are obviously implying that I'm implying. My point is to point out that it seems strange that we as humans have this idea that rape is "immoral" if it seems be beneficial to our naturalistic purpose.

I've quoted this a lot recently, because it sums up the humanist position on morality so well

Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence; the gift of revulsion against its implications; the gift of foresightâ€"something utterly foreign to the blundering short-term ways of natural selectionâ€"and the gift of internalising the very cosmos.

As creatures of foresight and reason, we are capable of rising above our evolutionary heritage. Rape is wrong because it is hurtful and unconsenting- it impinges on our rights and liberties. This view is reached quite reasonably is a secular system of ethics.

[leonswan2000]

Getting back to the original question. I dont think as you said rape would be a natualistic way to propagate. If only the male recieved pleasure from sex this would peobably be so. That most....some........a few...... no most women enjoy sex also means there is no reason to force sex. On morality I think people have taken views on rape as dictated by a paticular society. Manys religeons and govenmental polocies shrugged there shoulders at rape. However even in societies where rape wasnt prosecuted very few men did it. There are exceptions of course. I think it is still very simple. I dont treat others how I would not want to be treated. That is natural not learned. The thought of forcing sex on a person [men get raped a lot too] while that person is in pain and mental torment is naturaly abhorent to a normal person. Yes there are a lot of men that would and will rape without conciense, but if you were to examine these men you would find a lot more mental ambiguities and illness than in what we consider healthy or normal. Could a normal man be driven to rape. Yes just as he could to learn kill. Is it natural? Would a normal man in a normal enviornment rape if it was his only way to achieve sex with a women? Not me. [trust me] If the leader of the pack told you to do it or you were a not a man and your life revolved around raping and pillaging I think that would be a learned behaviour also. This is my philosophy [mostly] so I know its relavince is only trivial.

[Ihateusernames]

I've quoted this a lot recently, because it sums up the humanist position on morality so well

Stand tall, Bipedal Ape. The shark may outswim you, the cheetah outrun you, the swift outfly you, the capuchin outclimb you, the elephant outpower you, the redwood outlast you. But you have the biggest gifts of all: the gift of understanding the ruthlessly cruel process that gave us all existence; the gift of revulsion against its implications; the gift of foresightâ€"something utterly foreign to the blundering short-term ways of natural selectionâ€"and the gift of internalising the very cosmos.

As creatures of foresight and reason, we are capable of rising above our evolutionary heritage.

And this is exactly why I disagree with humanist's position on morality.  to sum up the sum up, Humanism's morality says "We *can*, therefor we *should* rise above 'evil' actions."  

If you don't see how pointless a statement like that is in explaining morality, I'll graciously explain it.  Yes, we *can* (hah.. Barack Obama!) rise above evil actions, but to say it follows from that we *should* is a gigantic logical fallacy (dang that pesky non sequitur, eh?).  I *can* murder you, does that also mean I *should*?  I *can* drug you, tie you down, wait till you wake up, and then slowly eat you starting with the toes and moving my way upwards whenever I get hungry until you perish, does that mean I *should*?  obviously not, therefor Humanism's "I *can* rise above 'evil' actions" absolutely does NOT mean I *should*.

Meh Ethical Nihilism, although a lot more distasteful when you dwell on it is absolutely more logical than Humanism.  Also, some sort of theistic bases for morality (eg: a deep duty (*snickers*) to a higher being's requests) makes more sense than Humanism's morality.

-Ihateusernames

[templeboy]

And this is exactly why I disagree with humanist's position on morality.  to sum up the sum up, Humanism's morality says "We *can*, therefor we *should* rise above 'evil' actions."  

If you don't see how pointless a statement like that is in explaining morality, I'll graciously explain it.  Yes, we *can* (hah.. Barack Obama!) rise above evil actions, but to say it follows from that we *should* is a gigantic logical fallacy (dang that pesky non sequitur, eh?).  I *can* murder you, does that also mean I *should*?  I *can* drug you, tie you down, wait till you wake up, and then slowly eat you starting with the toes and moving my way upwards whenever I get hungry until you perish, does that mean I *should*?  obviously not, therefor Humanism's "I *can* rise above 'evil' actions" absolutely does NOT mean I *should*.

Meh Ethical Nihilism, although a lot more distasteful when you dwell on it is absolutely more logical than Humanism.  Also, some sort of theistic bases for morality (eg: a deep duty (*snickers*) to a higher being's requests) makes more sense than Humanism's morality.

-Ihateusernames

With respect, I think that is a misrepresentation. You say

Humanism's morality says "We *can*, therefor we *should*

And then you proceed to quite rightly expose this statement as fallicious, but the initial premise is a straw-man of humanism. Humanistic philosophy is based (and I admit that I do not speak for all that identify as humanist, but this is what it means to me) on certain goals, for instance the continued well-being of mankind, of fairness and justice and equal opportunity, on prevalence of rational, logical and empirical approach to issues...so something that can be done, such as rape, murder, helping an old lady cross the road, donating to a charity, is not done because it can be done, but because it conforms to the humanist goals, and, broadly speaking, that is how from a humanist point of view we define right or wrong.

[LARA]

Creatures have developed various strategies to court, mate and procreate.  They vary among members of the animal kingdom, from very base, such as the penis fencing of hermaphroditic flatworms to complex, such as the courtship process of deer and elk or the very psychological bonding process that is human courtship. We have evolved these elaborate courtships for a reason, to make sure both parents are healthy enough to bear offspring and raise it until it can survive on it's own.  Rape violates this process.  It destroys the courtship rituals that evolved in a species to allow for the best mate choice to take place. If there is nothing preventing a male from raping a female, there is also nothing forcing her to take care of herself during pregnancy, care for the baby, etc.  If a female isn't ready for procreation, there isn't much forcing it if you need her mentally and physically able to care for the offspring.  Just because something does occur sometimes, doesn't mean it's a good thing.

[AlP]

I'm a member of the American Humanist Association. I'm not a Humanist though; it's just my way of supporting the war on Christmas.

The "official" Humanist position on ethics is this:

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

I admit that they do just kind of pull ethics out of a hat and say "tada!" In defense of Humanism though, I don't think one needs to justify ethics with some kind of deductive argument like "we can therefore we should", which of course doesn't follow. I don't know of a single world view that can justify ethics with a sound deductive argument and making a special case that Humanism must do so needs justification.

The nihilist view is that there are no inherent ethical values therefore ethical action cannot be logically justified. I used to call myself a nihilist but realized that I was behaving suspiciously like an ethical person, despite my inability to find premises to form an argument to justify it. It seems a bit silly now. I think the problem is we are all forced to make ethical value judgments. It doesn't matter that there are no inherent ethical values. Ethical values don't have to be inherent in nature. The made up ones are working pretty well, though there is room for improvement.

Valuing human welfare, interests and concerns and respecting human dignity works for me. The Humanist idea of all humans having inherent worth is cynical and I don't agree with it. Worth what to whom?

Are we still talking about rape? Rape is disrespectful, traumatizing, invasive and harmful. This is not rocket science.

[curiosityandthecat]

I'm confused... why would your position on the existence or non-existence of a deity have any bearing on whether or not you believe forcing someone to engage in sexual acts is ethical? This simply boils down to that old "If there were no god, all would be permitted" argument that has been ground to dust many times over, both here and elsewhere.

Atheists think the same thing about rape that everyone should think about rape: it's wrong. Why? Because it degrades the victim as something "less than." All we have is our humanity, after all; remove that and we are nothing.

The idea that one could use a question like this as a barometer for the ethical nature of someone is akin to asking "Do you think cheese is bad for you?" and using the answer to determine the acceptability of cattle domestication.

In as far as rape being an option for the continuation of a species, that's flawed. Rape, in and of itself, is an act of violence and no species can survive on a system based on that violence just to procreate. (And before anybody says praying mantis, that's not rape.)

[G-Roll]

i always thought rape was more of a power thing rather than sexual. being able to take what you want... and most people want sex. i say people because ive met many a guy who was rapped by a female. they pass out drunk and kind of wake up to some one they want nothing to do with grinding on top of them.

and what ever happened to the golden rule? dont do something to someone that you wouldnt want done to you. it sounds like a simple answer to me. rape sucks.... dont do it.

[curiosityandthecat]

i say people because ive met many a guy who was rapped by a female. they pass out drunk and kind of wake up to some one they want nothing to do with grinding on top of them.

Right here. Though, to be fair, it changed my mind and we did date for a couple years after that night.  

[Ihateusernames]

With respect, I think that is a misrepresentation. You say

Humanism's morality says "We *can*, therefor we *should*

And then you proceed to quite rightly expose this statement as fallicious, but the initial premise is a straw-man of humanism. Humanistic philosophy is based (and I admit that I do not speak for all that identify as humanist, but this is what it means to me) on certain goals, for instance the continued well-being of mankind, of fairness and justice and equal opportunity, on prevalence of rational, logical and empirical approach to issues...so something that can be done, such as rape, murder, helping an old lady cross the road, donating to a charity, is not done because it can be done, but because it conforms to the humanist goals, and, broadly speaking, that is how from a humanist point of view we define right or wrong.

Also with respect, I'm not exactly sure how it is a straw man of Humanism.  Please explain.

Yes, I admit Humanism is based on goals.  You have to remember though, so is everything else.  Isn't the point of an ethical stance is to give a *reason* that the goals a system is based on are 'good' or 'ethical' (ie rape is atrocious to link it to this thread)?  Saying "I have x, y, and z as goals" isn't a very good support for why x, y, and z are 'good'.

honestly, IMO even your post is basically "I can therefor I should" logic.  I *can* hold those Humanistic goals as good, but does it lead deductively to I *should* hold them as good? I think not.  If it does, let me ask you about the sociopath, or the murderer, or the theft.  They all have goals.  The sociopaths have the goal of doing whatever they want, the murderers have the goal of killing whomever they want, the thieves have the goal of stealing whatever they want.  Under humanistic logic it would be absolutely UNethical for someone with a murderous bent to NOT kill as it violets their 'goals', and the thief to NOT steal as it violates their 'goals'...etc.   I hope you can see what I'm getting at.  If it is unethical to violate humanistic goals, then its unethical to violate whatever goals you hold, no matter how stupid and obviously despicable they are (ie the rapist.)  

If this is still a straw-man in your eyes, I'm sorry but you will have to be kind enough to me to thoroughly explain how.

I don't know of a single world view that can justify ethics with a sound deductive argument and making a special case that Humanism must do so needs justification.

I disagree, I personally think ethical nihilism is sound in its ethical theory--It just happens to be so absolutely unlivable that it strikes me as practically asinine.  I also think a theistic argument for ethics is sound.  The reasons for disregarding theistic morality are based purely on squabbles over premises, not the fact the argument isn't deductive.  If one accepts the assumption of a God, then morals very well might rest in following that God's requests,  however if there is no God, their isn't even an argument for theistic morals, obviously.

Valuing human welfare, interests and concerns and respecting human dignity works for me.

I also agree it works for me in a practical way (day to day), what bothers me is that I recognize I have a higher intellect than a vast majority of the population, more education, and a scheming mind.  This posses the problem of being easily able to legally scam idiotic old people out of all their money for my own gain.  And honestly, I can't figure out a non-theistic based ethical 'reason' for not benefiting from someone else's suffering.  As long as it is legal, shouldn't it be permissible? Why value human welfare, interests and concerns when it doesn't further my selfish desires? Meh...

Are we still talking about rape? Rape is disrespectful, traumatizing, invasive and harmful. This is not rocket science.

Pardon my thread highjacking, but it was intentional as I'd rather not talk about rape as it is too personal an issue for myself.  to the OP:  If you want to put on your Philosophic thinking cap, pick murder, theft, or something else as object lessons for your points.  They work exactly the same.  Rape is just too personal a subject for too many people.

-Ihateusernames

[Whitney]

Also with respect, I'm not exactly sure how it is a straw man of Humanism.  Please explain.

Because the humanist view is not "we can therefore we should" it's more like we understand that morality has developed for the betterment of humankind and for the sake of our own good we ought to be ethical.

At least that's my understanding...I can't say I see much of a difference between humanism and ethical egoism; it's kinda like if you combined ethical egoism with social contract theory.  I'm not really sure that the Humanist Manifesto is meant to be an ethical defense anyway...I think it's just a list of moral goals that could arguably be supported by existing ethics theories like the ones I mentioned above.  Perhaps they list justification somewhere in the humanist manifesto...I admit I got bored reading it and didn't finish or if I did finish I don't remember much of it in detail.